I used to downvote fairly often on Reddit as a sign to disagree or to push down really disgusting bigoted comments. And to be honest, it became a habit to just downvote without replying. However, now that I’m on lemmy and not Reddit I’ve been actively trying to not instantly downvote things and instead move on or take the time to reply. Has anyone else been trying to do this?
For any weird, bigoted stuff, lots of downvotes and no replies is hopefully the message an OP needs to receive to get the hint that they should by plying their recruitment attempts elsewhere. Engaging them is probably the worst thing to do.
I’ve had to remember that there’s automatic hiding though, and do that manually.
Definitely agree with that, I very much so still downvote bigoted comments and posts though I think I’ve only encountered two comments like that so far. Lemmy mods and admins are doing a great job.
I switched instances just so I could be on one that had downvotes because I passionately believe downvotes give immediate power to of self moderation to the users. However, I’m very light on downvoting. I only downvotevote stuff like the OP was talking about or if something is technically incorrect and damaging to a thread. But again I’m very light on downvoting, as I was on Reddit before. I usually ignore something that I simply don’t agree with or think is too silly, etc.
I think the issue is that pushing this kind of self moderating also takes a lot of culpability out of the mods hands as well and helps encourage reddit’s typical “my free speech!” trolls. I like the idea of mods having rules that allow them to use discretion to take out the trash and in theory upvotes should still outshine the trash.
That said I do see some things where it’s like this ads nothing to nothing and I do miss the ol’ downvote key to encourage it away. I also used to(well I tried anyway) use it as a means of breaking momentum of those stupid ass posts on reddit that would often fly to the top of a comment thread burying the actual discussion and content towards the bottom.
I was Reading a post earlier tonight where someone shared an anti Covid view point and dropped the whole big Pharma/government groupthink garbage.
Every comment was telling them they would not be accepted here with those views.
I checked a few hours later and the conspiracists comment was gone, but it did have the largest number of downvotes I’ve come across yet at 150ish.
An echo chamber we need not be, but conspiracy garbage we need not at all.
I just miss when conspiracies were fun and not essentially a threat to one’s livelihood.
From everything I’ve seen, conspiracy theories were rarely harmless. They almost always were rooted in antisemitism.
I usually downvote not because I disagree but because I think the comment is low effort or written in bad faith.
I’ve never changed my voting habits. I downvote trolls, hate, spam, and irrelevant content. I never downvote out of disagreement, nor do I use the upvote as an agreement button. I will upvote people I disagree with/am debating with if I believe they are promoting relevant discussion. That is how voting is intended to be used.
I don’t downvote if I disagree but I can’t help but upvotes in agreement. Positive reinforcement is my thing.
Same for me, my only difficulty is discerning whether the commenter is promoting relevant discussion or doing some variant of gishgallop or sealioning.
Some variant of what’s it?
I had to look it up. Basically bad faith actors.
Gish gallop: “This Gish gallop is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm their opponent by providing an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments” - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
Sealioning: “Sealioning’ is a form of trolling meant to exhaust the other debate participant with no intention of real discourse.” – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
Same. For me, upvote = adding something to the conversation. That’s why I upvote most comments I come across, and rarely downvote people.
They should make it so that replying to a comment automatically disables your ability to downvote it.
Would simultaneously prevent people trading downvotes while they argue back and forth, and encourage people to simply ignore trolls and move on without replying.
If a post contains incorrect information that could be dangerous, you should be able to reply to it and also downvote it so that the incorrect information becomes less visible. For example, if someone said you should pinch your nose and lean your head back when you get a nosebleed. You should be able to correct them and still downvote to make the incorrect information less visible.
Wouldn’t the correction be sufficient? Other users could read it and decide to downvote
I like this idea. Make the karma irrelevant so we don’t get those awful bots or the tit-for-tat arguments
Why do you think I joined the instance I did?
Downvoting is useful for pushing irrelevant/spam comments down but it is definitely overused.
Yup, I saw vote manipulation way too much on Reddit. 3-5 down votes on a dissenting opinion right after it’s posted usually tanks even the most well reasoned comment. Accounts like Unidan fly under the radar for so long.
It’s not used for pushing irrelevant or spammy content. It’s used to show you don’t agree and push that content away from sight. At least be honest about that if you support using downvotes.
People act like they are making the thread better in some way by cleaning trash. But that’s not what happens. You are just making sure opinions you don’t agree with are at the bottom of the thread. Nothing noble about that. Feels good, sure.
You’re phrasing it in a way that is actively harmful. It’s like you’re trying to make downvotes worse than they are.
They’re absolutely useful, but not for just opinions you don’t like.
I think we just have different experiences with downvotes. I see them being harmful, yes. Because they are used to disagree, not to flag incorrect content, in subreddits (communities) where opinions are discussed. In technical fact-based subreddits they may work fine, but in discussion-based ones, they are horrible and leads to one opinion at the top always.
There’s a difference between acknowledging people use downvotes incorrectly and encouraging them to use downvotes incorrectly. The first one is a fine discussion. The second is harmful.
You shouldn’t try to make things worse to prove your point.
At least be honest about that if you support using downvotes.
lemmy.one has downvotes disabled.
I have them disabled also on my instance. Beehaw showed the way here and it makes sense to me to not use them. People just want to punish opinions they don’t agree with. The button should be called Punish. :)
deleted by creator
Yeah it wasn’t made for disagreement, it was meant for a crowd control form of moderation. That’s why they had the karma index and allow for subreddits to impose karma restrictions. (I guess there could be an argument about it being a form of social credit system if it were, which let’s be honest it became that anyway, whether or not it was intended to be that way from the beginning)
“Discussions became binary”. And yet you subscribe to the binary of “hateful vs. non-hateful opinion” as if it’s clearly identifiable.
deleted by creator
Hate speech laws in real life are also very ambiguous and rarely stand alone in court without another more easily proven charge.
Upvote to you too anyway, although I’m still guilty of using downvote as a disagree button.
up/down voting is simply a way to help comments you think are good, or agree with, become more/less dominant in the thread.
In some cases, comments are useful to explain why - but often that’s just not the case.
If youre really into that, you should have signed up at Beehaw. They have downvotes disabled.
Personally, Imma keep doing it. Not because Im petty. But if I really disagree with something, I feel like it helps me avoid replying with something stupid or hurtful.
Downvotes really shouldn’t be for comments or submissions that you disagree with, but for anything that does not add to the conversation. Reddit started off with this guideline too, but at some point votes turned into agree/disagree.
People always said the same thing on Reddit too, but there’s a lot of stuff that “adds to a conversation” that needs to be downvoted. Just because something “adds to a conversation” doesn’t mean that the people shouldn’t express that it’s an awful comment or viewpoint by downvoting.
For instance, on a history article about Nazis someone could say “well some were bad, but not all were. Plus the good they did around the world was actually a lot better than people give them credit for like introducing a universal basic income or providing their citizens with jobs and healthcare for all.”
Like… it’s a viewpoint… but by not downvoting that viewpoint you’re basically allowing someone to say Nazis aren’t bad. Which to me is why the downvote button is there in the first place. Good, well thought out comments that add to a conversation should be upvoted, but awful comments should be downvoted too. People just need to be more well intentioned about when they’re downvoting a viewpoint they disagree with.
If that example had a little more substance and better context it would be valid. It’s important to recognize that most Nazis weren’t cartoonishly evil. Some may have even been mostly good people who supported the worst possible politics.
Acknowledging that makes it easier to spot similarities today.
Hey look, a perfect example!
Some may have even been mostly good people who supported the worst possible politics.
If your “support” of the worst possible politics is “only one race is the true master race and the rest don’t deserve to live along side us” then no amount of helping others, doing community service and being “mostly good” makes you a mostly good person. It’s makes you a shit person with a horrendous and incompatible viewpoint of the world. That deserves a downvote. It deserves it because the comment adds something to the conversation, but not the way that it is something we all should support.
Yeah. I think you missed the important bits that allow you to recognize the same behavior in an increasingly fascist world. And to consider what you can and should practically do about it now. Instead you’ll wait for an arch-villain looking guy twirling his mustache that’ll never show up.
It IS the perfect example. At least we agree on that.
I actually did lol, that was supposed to be my main but since they defederated from lemmy.world I’ve been using this account more. I may switch back once they refederate but for now this is my main.
Yeah such dumb move on their part.
Nope. Downvotes are there to be used, so I use them.
I dislike using downvote as a disagree button. Makes me feel like I’m discouraging people from sharing an opinion that’s different than mine. Even if they are wrong (in good faith) I think I’d rather they feel it is a safe place to be wrong and just own the mistake with an edit or a reply. I know it makes me feel bad (I know I should have thicker skin) when I’m downvoted for having an opinion so I don’t want to make others feel that way.
I agree about not using it just to disagree with an opinion, but I do think the ability to downvote is very important. It just needs to be clear that it’s supposed to be used to reduce the impact of stuff this is either harmful or just distracts from the conversation.
If I’m in a thread talking about what the best flavor of milkshake is, I will absolutely upvote someone claiming that chocolate is the best even though they are “objectively” wrong. They are however engaging with the conversation. On the other hand, someone who comes in saying that they hate milkshakes and prefer lemonade, while they’re not exactly wrong in having that opinion, it would be worthy of a downvote because they’re in the wrong place for that comment.
And then there’s the bots/people that if they lost the ability to ever talk again, the world would be a better place. Never feel sorry for downvoting them.
You have a point. I did find myself downvoting much of what I disagreed with on Reddit. I wouldn’t mind seeing everyone break that habit here. Maybe that should be stickied in some official welcome to Lemmy etiquette post.
That’s a great step if it’s something worth replying to. Not everything is.
HackerNews has an interesting approach: You can’t downvote comments unless you reach a certain amount of “Karma”, and you can’t downvote posts at all, you can “flag” them, meaning you think they don’t belong here. Flagging doesn’t affect the vote count, but massive flagging does make the post appear lower in the feed, and alerts mods.
This, alongside the tight moderation and zero-tolerance towards flame wars in the comments makes HackerNews one of the best places on the internet imho.
Completely agree on all points.
An additional one I’d argue is a huge part of HN’s success is their employment of a full-time moderator, dang, who does a great job.
I don’t think I have downvoted anyone in Lemmy yet.
But post and comment quality is much higher than Reddit.
I downvoted that post that was an advertisement for crypto
if you don’t have downvote, you don’t have a tool to negatively select some content other than reporting. this way, if mods are overworked, which is always, you don’t see difference between content that is irrelevant to most people and content that is actively harmful
I bet that 99% of comments that are downvoted are not breaking any rules at all, and a mod would do nothing.
I don’t know why people keep thinking downvoting is helping the mods… It really isn’t about anything other than pushing down opinions you don’t agree with. That’s how downvoting is used, upvoting is the opposite of that.
consider the following: technical question gets posted. you get two answers, one wrong but posted quickly, and another correct and more elaborate, but posted much later. the first one will get more upvotes just because it appears first, and the other gets less attention as a result. one way you can counteract this is by introducing downvotes, it’s not perfect solution, but it kinda works
Yep also a valid usecase. I agree it’s useful for technical discussions but at the same time, it’s harmful for opinion based discussions.
Which is why you shouldn’t downvote everything you disagree with. That’s not what it’s for, and we should actively discourage people from using it incorrectly. As Sisyphean of a task as that is, it still matters.
You cannot change how people use them, no matter how much you want them to use it correctly.
this works better in specialized, technical spaces with little place for opinion (i’m talking about places like r/chemistry where i contributed previously). you can spot very quickly who’s wrong by downvotes
Yeah I guess it makes sense when it’s not about opinions.
i’m guessing that this property has made reddit a good place for technical discussion in the first place
Honestly, for a while on Reddit, downvote was the only action other than posting comments that I engaged with on Reddit, mostly because I never felt strongly enough to upvote or block or save. And then I went in and seriously prunes Subreddits and basically cut all the Subreddits that I would ever downvote in and the ones that were negativity based like all the Subreddits dedicated to showcasing trashy, racist or otherwise shitty people. Also, any subs generally based in being down on something, even if it was something that everyone should be down on. Also nixed subs like latestagecapitalism because while I broadly agreed with the sentiment, they very vitriolic about everything. Reddit really improved for me since then. Highly recommended, I then spent a lot more time upvoting and commenting. Obviously don’t have that problem on Lemmy.
Obviously don’t have that problem on Lemmy.
yet
No, my up/down vote policy remains the same. I only downvote when I find the comment aggressive, rude or inappropriate. Occasionally I downvote something that is incorrect, but if the reason is that then I don’t downvote to negative values. I don’t think giving an incorrect answer deserves a negative ratio.
